Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 May 17

Humanities desk
< May 16	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 17

Released Confederate Prisoners in the US Civil War

I have an ancestor who was released from the Union Prison at Point Lookout, MD in June 1865. This is about when the prison was closing and emptying out due to the end of the war. I'm curious how soldiers would have gotten home after being released. My ancestor was sick at the time and had a long way to travel (but he made it). Wrad (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Naturally, as you may be aware, there were at least rail roads in the North, but once he got further South, they may have been beggared up by General Sherman, and it would not have been a priority for the Yankees to care whether or not one of their ( former ) foes made it anywhere. People can be quite resourceful if need be - reminds me of the scenes in the movie Cold Mountain, where Jude Law's character is trying to get home by any means. I suspect also that as much as Andersonville was a hell on earth for the Union men there, the Northern run prisons could not have been much better, based on what I understand about how Dr. Samuel Mudd had been treated upon being falsely accused of being confederate with Booth and the others, when all he had done was what a doctor would be nature do. I have pondered and researched the idea of writing a novel about the idea of a Confederate trying to get across country like that in those days with no transport other than train or horse. I guess in those days people - especially the hard working farmers and labourers of the South, were tough and could put up with anything if it meant finally getting back to their family. You could be sure your many greats grandfather had like minded Southerners who would have helped him. Who's to know if even a few Northern ones might have? Although any thought of them wanting to be charitable may have been pretty much dashed once Mr. Booth did his dirty deed. Not in any way to liken the two too much, but it is known that the Nazis had the ODESSA network, which got people away from the custody of the Allies to escape justice by heading out to mainly South America, and it is also believed - Australia and New Zealand, which is why we have had the occaisional trial over the years for those hunted down. It would be interesting to know whether or not there was some similar sort of set up eighty years previously for characters a lot less odious, most of whom had only fought for what they saw as their rights not to be dominated by a far away capital. Depending on where your ancestor had to get to - better if he only needed to make it to Virginia, as opposed to all the way to Texas - but I suspect there must have been ways to ask for help if they could from whom ever would give it, travel by rail, horse or even just walk. Then boat would be a good idea for some journeys also. There must be books on that sort of thing. I have one on the major battles, published over twenty years ago, and I also owned one called the Divided Union, but I know not whether they had any hints on how soldiers may have made it home. History Channel could also have something on that. 202.36.179.66 (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

He had to get to Northern Alabama. I suspect he had dysentery or something from bad water. He never owned any slaves. His mother was a widow and very poor and destitute throughout the war. As far as I can gather he had grown up picking cotton in someone else's fields alongside his three brothers, one of whom was killed and another crippled for life in the war. My ancestor was relatively unscathed. Wrad (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

People were a lot closer to the land in those days, and had a better clue of how to survive outdoors than we would. Keep in mind that Lewis and Clark and their party walked 2,000 miles or so in each direction, and only lost one man along the way. Another factor to consider is that many men might have found themselves in your ancestor's situation, and maybe he was one of the lucky ones who made it. Unfortunately, no one has so far answered your specific question with certainty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge that this was true of most Confederate soldiers, regardless of their personal views on Negroes. This is the age old story of nobs getting normal people to fight their wars for them. My understanding is that the South was rebelling on the principle of not wanting to be told what to do by the North, and it was just that slavery was one of the issues within that. It is also a fact that President Lincoln did not emancipate the slaves - in effect only then making the war about slavery - until the first of January, 1863. Certainly the defeat of the South led to the end of legal slavery on a national level - but no one can legislate personal opionion. The mal treatment of blacks continued in many other ways for over a hundred years thereafter - and it can be said, still occurs to this day. My thought on why individual people did fight for the South is that they are as varied as there were people. One could parallel the plight of the South in terms of their thoughts on not wanting to be ruled over by others to that of the Americans daring to take up arms against his most glorious Majesty, King George the Third. It is interesting that the same reason justified back in 1775, leading to the skirmish at Bunker Hill, did not seem valid in 1861, nor also does it for the anti government militias of today. I am not defending them - especially where acts of violence occur - but it is interesting that a nation that founded itself on the idea of liberty and no taxation without representation should now become one that sometimes - not always - tramples individual rights, and yet on the other hand, is also a country that sticks up for the oppressed of other lands, as mine is too. As for King George, it has to be said, that although he was America's anointed leader, he did not help the situation, and other means could have been found that could have been fair to both sides. But I digress. Amazing how a question on one subject can end up all over the place. As for the idea that people were closer to the land - yes - that makes sense, and due to that, your ancestor may even have known about some natural cures for dysentry in the form of plants and such on the way home. Certainly getting out of that camp was a start. I suspect if he did have help, ( and why shouldn't men who had been through like experiences, and who still felt a bond of loyalty, not assist one another ? ), this would have been desirable, with safety in numbers, and as long as they could make their long journey not bothered by vengeful Northerners, and with the good will of people on the way in places like Virginia or Tennesssee, even if through some of those mountains, then the journey would be, if still dangerous, long and draining, still manageable. The Russian202.36.179.66 (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Southerners have often tried to deflect the slavery issue and defend the Confederacy by saying "the war was not about slavery". That is flat out, dead wrong. It was not the only reason for the war, nor for what kept the war going, but it was a prime ingredient in the stew that had been simmering since the Constitution was written, and after a number of compromises, it finally boiled over when we got a President who was anti-slavery and wouldn't kiss up to the South. The Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free any slaves, but it was a brilliant stroke politically, as it took away any remote possibility of the British helping the South, as it would have compelled them to overtly defend slavery. Lincoln had been anti-slavery for a long time, and this was his chance, his foot-in-the-door, to start to put an end to it. The Emancipation Proclamation was a major step in ensuring the defeat of the South and in the abolition of slavery. None of these responses answer the OP's question definitively, though. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ with you Bugs on this issue as I had several maternal ancestors who fought for the Confederacy and they were from an area in Northern Arkansas that did not have slaves. In point of fact, those ancestors in question (2 of my great-great-grandfathers) had never seen a black person in their lives. One was wounded, the other killed (it says on his tombstone that he was killed in the War of Northern Aggression). The Ozarks, in the beginning, did not wish to take part in the Civil War for that very reason; however, they were eventaully persuaded to do so on the grounds that the conflict was really over states rights. I was taught in school that the south were the bad guys, but remember it was the northern slavers who brought the slaves to America in the first place and many of the northern soldiers mistreated blacks as well as whites after they invaded and pretty much destroyed the south, leaving it impoverished and deeply angry and resentful. In fact, many of the guys in blue uniforms were conscripts who had just arrived in the US. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for an instant justifying the heinous institution of slavery, but it's wrong to say all southerners donned the grey uniform because they upholded slavery.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs clearly states that slavery wasn't the only reason but that it was the main reason. I suspect that the majority of Confederate soldiers fought to protect their family, property, way of life, and their rights; the most important one being the right to own Black slaves. Flamarande (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The reasons for the war and the reasons why individual soldiers fought are two very different things. The vast majority of Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves and were fighting for a variety of other reasons: loyalty to their state, anger at "Northern aggression", etc. But if you look at why the Southern states seceded as stated in declarations passed by state legislatures, they all named the preservation of the institution of slavery as the primary reason for leaving the Union. To put it in a modern context: if most U.S. soldiers fighting in the Gulf War didn't own cars, would that mean the war wasn't about oil? (I'm not saying it was, only that the motivations of the troops is irrelevant.) Soldiers don't declare war; national leaders do. —D. Monack ^talk 07:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Many people joined the Confederacy due to family and/or community pressure. As I had poined out before many people of the Ozarks felt it wasn't really their fight, but were pressurised into joining for fear of being ostracised by the community; in point of fact, the famous Hatfield-McCoy feud allegedly resulted over the two families having taken opposing sides during the Civil War.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's always the same old story everywhere all the time. Your national leader(s) leads your nation into war. You enlist in the military because it is your duty as a citizen to fight for your country and your people. If you don't join then the majority will consider you a coward or a traitor (failing sensible medical - and perhaps religious - reasons of course). These basic principles can be applied to most soldiers in most conflicts. Flamarande (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not take the word of the vice-president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, as to what the war was mainly about? See Cornerstone Speech#.22Peculiar_Institution.22... AnonMoos (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You all are talking about the big picture of the war from the point of view of people who were wealthy and had slaves, or, for that matter, could read and write and argue well and understand arguments and political issues. I'm interested in that, but I'm more interested in the views of this individual man who had no slaves and who was probably illiterate. I don't have anything written by him about why he went to war. I suspect it was for money and a chance to get out of a very bad situation. War life for him seems to have been better than life at home. I also suspect that there may have been community reasons for it, tied to the fact that many in his church were going. I have a memoir written by a man who fought in his company who was a bit wealthier and educated. The letter constantly emphasizes secession, but never mentions slavery. I imagine my ancestor would have known the writer of this memoir and heard him talk quite a bit, but I have my doubts as to how much he would have understood fully.

In any case, here's the route my ancestor would have taken if he had used google maps in his trip from prison camp to home:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Courtland,+AL&daddr=Point+Lookout,+Severna+Park,+MD+21146&hl=en&geocode=%3BCdRQcu3e_dbaFalDVAIdQkVv-yk1bZPoVfq3iTGRpnS5hmYXoA&mra=ls&dirflg=w&sll=36.844461,-81.958008&sspn=9.823011,19.753418&ie=UTF8&z=6

Wrad (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrad, I'm sorry that no one has answered your question about how your ancestor might have gotten home. Your Google map shows a route taking Interstate highways, which of course didn't exist at the time. According to this source:

"Beginning in February of 1865, prisoners who swore an allegiance to the Union were classified for release. Subsequently, groups of approximately 500 were each given a food ration, money and or transportation vouchers and placed on a train for City Point, Virginia. City Point was the major Union army supply depot in northern Virginia and from there each prisoner was provided assistance to his home destination. However, due to the fact that the war was still ongoing and the overall condition of transportation in the South was poor it is very conceivable that these men had a difficult time reaching home

"Those soldiers who survived were released in groups at the end of the war and provided the same assistance for returning to their homes in the South. By the end of 1865, the camp was fully closed, all buildings torn down or moved to nearby locations."

This source describes the procedure at a different camp than the one where your ancestor was held, but probably the procedure was the same at all Union prisoner camps. So your ancestor could have traveled relatively comfortably, by train and steamer and other conveyances, back to his hometown. Here is a railroad map of the Southeast as of about 1865. Point Lookout is not far from the main line between Baltimore and Washington, and I would guess that prisoners might have been taken by wagon to the main rail line or else taken by steamship or sailing ship from Point Lookout to Baltimore, where they could transfer to a train. From Washington, released prisoners could catch a ferry to Alexandria, Virginia. As you can see, rail lines connect Alexandria with Decatur, Alabama, through Lynchburg, Virginia, and Chattanooga, Tennessee. From Decatur, it would not be a long wagon trip to Courtland. Alternatively, if your ancestor was processed in City Point, Virginia, as described in the source above, City Point is located on an arm of the Chesapeake Bay outside of Petersburg, Virginia, so it would have made sense to send batches of men from Lookout Point, Maryland, by steamer or sailing ship directly to City Point. There, they would have been processed and then taken by wagon to Petersburg, where your ancestor could have taken a train through Lynchburg along the route I've just described. Marco polo (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Wrad (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Reading our article on City Point, I see that there was in the mid-1800s already a rail line linking City Point with Petersburg, so that would have made that stage of the journey that much easier. You can see why they would have used City Point to process released prisoners: It was both a seaport and a rail depot. Marco polo (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for turning your question about your ancestor into a debate about the reasons for the Civil War. That was not my intention. I understood right away that naturally there are many about who had great great grandfathers and such on both sides of the conflict, and that although the result of the war did pave the way to ending slavery, and slavery may have been one of the major issues about it, I did not believe that all Confederates believed in, or practised, slavery, and their personal reasons for fighting could be far removed from those of others. Even some Northerners would not have cared about the Negroes, and may well have joined up to " Put those Rebs in their Place ", rather than care about freedom or other lofty ideals. I probably have ancestors who fought in the Revolutionary War against the Continental Army, since I know one at the time was a wheelwright, and his job may even have been to supply carriages and wheel bases for cannon to be shipped across the Atlantic to deal with that minor insurrection. That was history. I do not believe every Red Coat was evil, as portrayed by Mel Gibson, although some obviously were, but that applies to both sides. The thing is, knowing how our ancestors battled each other in the past - or how yours did so against the Union - and even some cousins of mine I believe also live in the US, this should serve as a lesson to us to avoid further destructive wars - war just for the sake of war. Some are necessary from a certain point of view - but that is only because their always exist those who provoke war. As for your original question, I am glad it was answered to your satisfaction, and that a missing part of your family's history can be filled in, because where we all come from is important to us. Members of my family had written a book on how they settled in Templeton, west of Christchurch here in New Zealand, from England, in 1863, and it never ceases to be intruiging. Keep up the curiousity. The Russian.202.36.179.66 (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Which date was which ?

I am aware of the difference between the Old and New Styles of Calendars, with regard to the introduction of the Gregorian which we use now. When I entered the date 3 September 1651 into the Wolfram Mathematica website for finding out significances of dates in History and the future, I saw that this was given as a Sunday, being the Gregorian date for the Battle of Worcester. Now I know that the 3rd of September 1651 was a Wednesday (O.S.), but this site was suggesting that the date 3rd of September is the one we would now give to the date the battle was fought on - that is, to look at another example, in the sense that on the day that was to England within 1642, Isaac Newton was born on Christmas Day, but the Gregorian date, as it would have been in France at the exact time he was getting his bottom smacked to help him breathe, was, I understand, 6 January, 1643. So my question is, have a lot of dates of old battles such as that been changed to what they would be now under the Gregorian Calendar, or did say the Battle of Worcester occur on what was to those who were actually there, Wednesday the 3rd of September, 1651, which would have been a different day and date had England by then already adopted Gregoria, which they did not do for another 101 years to the day, I think, or was it a different date, which would have been 3 September under the New Style ? My thought is that if September the Third is the New Style date, then the battle would have been fought on what was actually about August 23rd or so to those who were there at the time. The Russian202.36.179.66 (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I found some books online published in England before 1752 that give the battle's date as 3 September. So I can say with reasonable confidence that 3 September is the Old Style date. The New Style date would be 13 September. In my experience we don't usually convert historic dates from Julian to Gregorian. So it is understandable that when you ask Wolfram what happened on September 3 it tells you the Battle of Worcester happened. There are some exceptions, for example Washington's birth is always given as 22 February 1732 (as Wolfram will tell you) even though at the time of his birth it was reckoned as 11 February 1731. --Cam (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The exceptions are always for people who lived through the calendar change. Otherwise, the dates are not (or should not be) updated. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

An example of a famous battle commemorated in the New Style is the Battle of the Boyne which actually occured on 1 July 1690, but is celebrated annually by loyalists in Northern Ireland on 12 July. In point of fact, the Calendar was 10 days behind in England and Ireland in the 17th century, so the actual Gregorian date for the Battle of the Boyne was 11 July 1690.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

A similar case is when Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia celebrated her birthday on 11 June instead of the correct 10 June date after 1900. She was born on 29 May 1897 by the Old Style Calendar.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There've been many such cases, Jeanne. A couple that come to mind are Vladimir Nabokov (it's explained in detail in the Notes section); and Sergei Rachmaninoff. Let me quote from the booklet accompanying the complete edition of Rachmaninoff' recordings, issued by RCA Records in his centenary year 1973:

• 1873 - Born on March 20 (o.s.)/April 1 (n.s.)*
• * In the 19th century the difference between the Julian calendar (O.S.), still in use in Russia, and the Gregorian (N.S.) was 12 days. In the 20th century this difference grew to 13 days and thus technically Rachmaninoff's birthday fell on April 2 (my highlighting; I circled these words in my copy, and wrote the comment "CRAP!"). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There are some encyclopedias which give Lenin's DOB as 9 April 1870 which is the correct OS date, but he celebrated it 22 April when it was actually 21 April seeing as he was born in the 19th and not 20th century. It's all so confusing and terribly annoying to put it mildly.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet it needn't be. It's an incredibly simple concept. The difference between the calendars at the time of the date in question is the only factor that needs to be taken into account. The difference between the calendars at the time the calculation is being done is utterly irrelevant, otherwise people like Ivan the Terrible would have 4 different death dates by now, depending on whether the person converting the date was living in the 16th, 18th, 19th or 20th century, and that's just a ridiculous concept. He died on 18 March 1584 (os); at that time the difference was 10 days, so the NS date is 28 March. End of story. It doesn't "become" 29 March in 1700, 30 March in 1800, or 31 March in 1900, but stays at 28 March forever. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. One calculates from the century in which a person was born/event took place, not the century at the time of calculation; otherwise George Washington's birthday would be celebrated now on 25 February instead of 22 Feb. As an astrologer, I do a lot of proleptic Gregorian calculations and it's very simple to arrive at the correct date.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Battle of the Boyne, according to some calculators, was in the Gregorian Calander the 8th of July. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank You all, that clears a lot of things up. What we want to know as historians ( amateur though I might be ), is what happened to people then, when it happened to them - that is, the date THEY acknowledged at the time. Calculators should show a certain date is so many days ago, that it really is, taking into account the two major Calendar shifts. I have studied this a bit and come up with perpetual calendars and adapted a formula to find the day a given date of history was, taking these things into account. I did this because most perpetual calendars generally tried to cover only the last 200 years, perhaps deeming it more difficult to contend with the change overs. I worked all that out eighteen years ago. All I was concerned about now was the idea that what I thought were the actual dates for battles and such for those then, may not be what we regard the date to be comparing it to now. Thanks Again. The Russian.202.36.179.66 (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To go back to the beginning of calenders, as we know them; The Julian Calender, was calculated as 365 days divided into a year. However, as time proved, it was out 1 day in 4 years. Hence, the Gregorian Calender calculated the 1 day extra in four years. Hence, there was a time when, on looking at the days in the interim period, we attempt to calculate what those days would be in the Gregorian Calender.

Logically speaking it is not a correct step for the days, then, were of the Julian Calender in History; that is: to go back and substitute another date than what is of History, may be an information point but hardly Historical. So they remain "cemented into" the Julian Calender.

However, if you are going to celebrate a day of the past, such as the Battle of The Boyne, then it would be more logical to have it as the 8th rather then the 12th, for that would be truer to time as we calculate and have it now.

I hope this helps to clear up the point. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

But contemplate; The beginning of the new Millennium is actually; 1st of January 2001, not 2000. There is no year Zero! Yet politicians missed the point! MacOfJesus (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Extremely pro-choice philosopher

I have heard of a philosopher who held that parents should be allowed to kill their children up to two years of age as a sort of post-birth abortion. Who is this philosopher, and where can we find these views espoused? dlempa (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Peter Singer is who you're thinking about. Shadowjams (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Marquis de Sade? Wrad (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It is bad enough this practice is allowed at all, and now some want to extend it, to the point that even pro choice people would have to say that that is not on. The Russian. 202.36.179.66 (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there isn't a parent alive that hasn't thought about whacking their two-year-old. Most of them resist that temptation. Peter Singer's own parents, for example. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter Singer's book Practical Ethics features this argument. See also Groningen Protocol and child euthanasia for more info. Gabbe (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ethical Debate

I wonder how he would have liked it if his parents had decided to kill him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC) How the hell does someone who advocates the killing of newborn children obtain a postion to teach at a university and thus receive a higher wage than dedicated workers at hospitals who tend ill and dying babies doing their best to ensure their survival? Delightful people we share our world with. Jesus wept!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC) How is any of this helpful to the OP? 212.219.39.146 (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC) The comments by Shadowjams and Gabbe are helpful. Otherwise, WP:NOT#FORUM. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC) It isn't at all. Jeanne; God forbid anyone (least of all a professional philosopher!) should espouse ideas which may offend the moral majority, particularly those members thereof who haven't actually read anything he's written but are willing to be outraged on hearsay. :) FiggyBee (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Professional philosopher is it? Oh well, I suppose if he holds that exalted title, he should be regarded with due respect. Don't worry, guys, I won't comment further, lest I be accused of being a moral person. Heaven forbid.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC) The point is that this is a reference desk, where people from all parts of the world, with all sorts of backgrounds and values, come for answers to questions. It is not a forum on which editors should discuss their own opinions, however widely they may be shared. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Morals are irrelevant here. 212.219.39.146 (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC) (ec) And my point is that it's stupid to be morally outraged at things you know nothing about. I don't necessarily agree with Peter Singer, but I have at least read and studied a lot of what he's written and understand where he's coming from. In fact, I'm not sure that "Extremely pro-choice" isn't a mischaracterisation of Singer's argument; basically, Singer argues that if we value a person on how "human" they are, then babies aren't properly "human" until they're old enough to develop language and a sense of self; if there's no difference in humanity between a foetus and a newborn, there's no moral difference between killing a foetus and a newborn. So (and this isn't Singer's argument), if we think killing a newborn is wrong, perhaps we should think killing a foetus is wrong too? FiggyBee (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC) IMHO Peter Singer is simply being a Devil's advocate (which is a worthy and valuable position in serious academic debates). There is a major moral difference between killing/aborting a foetus and killing/murdering a newborn. Almost all of us know it and I'm pretty sure Peter Singer knows the difference. Just don't ask me loaded questions asking explain the precise difference (Sadly I'm not a philosopher - I work for a living). Flamarande (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC) >>>>There isn't any difference at all between murdering a fetus or murdering a newborn. There are subtle strategies going on where first they legalize abortion; then they legalize partial-birth abortion; then they legalize "abortion" of young children; eventually they eliminate anyone they don't like. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Is your assumption based on having read anything written by Singer? Gabbe (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I think we need a healthy dose of "you should read Singer before throwing him out the window" here. I don't agree with everything he's written but he's not a moron at all—he's probably one of the most important and brilliant philosophers alive. His conclusions are often exceptionally counter-intuitive but it is very hard to find good logical arguments against them. And unlike most philosophers these days, the questions he is preoccupied with are actually moral questions that actually matter to most people these days (e.g. is abortion moral, is eating meat moral, what is the moral response of those who have wealth to those who do not). --Mr.98 (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It was Peter Singer, but this is an oversimplification of his stance: he didn't advocate the killing of children, but instead put forward an argument based on preference utilitarianism, which effectively argues that the right action in any given circumstance is that which brings about the most good, in which "good" is defined as the meeting of preferences. A foetus has no preferences, and a new born child has few preferences. Thus, in a simple equation, it is possible that their preferences will be overridden by that of a parent. However, the equation becomes more complex, as there may well be the preferences of other people to take into account, and thus this doesn't mean that he's advocating the random killing of two year olds. His stance is complex, and utilitarianism, while not an approach I support, is a significant attempt to try and understand ethics. I've always thought that what Singer brings is a willingness to accept the logical outcomes of the approach, even though those outcomes may be counter-intuitive. Anyway, you probably want Rethinking Life and Death as a source. - Bilby (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've moved around the above messages based on indenting and what seems to make sense. Particularly given the collapse box, the discussion was rather confusing the way things were before [1] Nil Einne (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses; I think Peter Singer must be who I had heard of. dlempa (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, if you're allowed to lock up a person for fifty years for killing his child, then you're also allowed to kill a child. Vranak (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2010

Responsibilities of an LDS prophet

I am writing in regards to the LDS prophet Thomas S. Monson. I am not sure what his day to day prophetic responsibilities are as they are not articulated in the article. Also, there is no information regarding what prophetic acts he has carried out. As we attempt to describe Monson in the most encyclopedic (not necessarily Mormon) way, it is pertinent to understand his prophetic conduct and functioning through a global lens. Tkfy7cf (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the articles "Prophet, seer, and revelator", "President of the Church" and "Revelation (Latter Day Saints)"? They expand on what "prophecy" means in the context of Mormonism. Gabbe (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Unfortunately, those articles do not speak of the day to day responsibilities of the president of the Church or the prophetic revelations of Monson. Do you have any insight on those issues? Tkfy7cf (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

national emblem of United kingdom

The origin of national emblem of the United Kingdom and ite symbolic significance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majian1ma (talk • contribs) 09:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the article "Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom"? Gabbe (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Other than the royal coat of arms, the United Kingdom does not have a national emblem. Its constituent countries of England, Scotland and Wales each have their own national symbols. The position in Northern Ireland is more complicated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The symbol for Northern Ireland is the Red Hand of Ulster, which is not accepted by everybody in the North.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That comment is a misrepresentation of the position discussed in the article to which I have linked. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The United Kingdom DOES have national emblems: Britannia[2] (a woman with a Roman helmet, a Union Jack shield and a trident) is the personification of the nation, much as Marianne is for France, although she has a few years on her French counterpart, apparently dating from 1672. Also a royally crowned lion passant - the British lion - as used on the emblem of the British Army. Otherwise Ghmyrtle is correct; the Royal Arms, the Royal cypher (EIIR) or a stylised representation of St Edward's Crown all have their uses. Alansplodge (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

According to our article, Britannia (one 't', two 'n's) is a personification of Great Britain, rather than of the UK - perhaps a point of detail, unless you live west of the Irish Sea. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! I was let down by the link still working with my rubbish spelling! Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but in general terms "British" usually means the UK - the British Army doesn't exclude Northern Ireland and in the Olympics we have "Team GB". Alansplodge (talk)

"British" definitely means "of the United Kingdom" (or "of Great Britain", but usually the former), but "Great Britain" is never (correctly) synonymous with "United Kingdom". Britannia is "the personification of Great Britain", not "a British personification", so you can't interpret it as referring to the UK. Yes, the terminology is very confusing and rather arbitrary. Confusion and arbitrariness are probably much better emblems of UK than anything else! --Tango (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Although what you say may be technically correct, I still believe that Britannia represents the whole nation. Did this cartoonist[3] mean to specifically exclude Ireland? I don't think so. Doesn't she have a Union Flag on her shield? Just my opinion though. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't we invent an emblem comprising confusion and arbitrariness and include it on the UK article? ;) Jack forbes (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

How about a snarling Sylvester the cat?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Alan. When they sing "Rule, Britannia! Britannia rule the waves; Britons never, never, never shall be slaves" these days, they're thinking of the whole British nation (i.e. the UK, including NI), although the writer of the words in 1740 would have had a narrower scope in mind since at that time the crown of Ireland was in personal union only with the British crown but the people of Ireland were not in any sense Britons. That all changed in 1801 when Ireland became part of the UK. It changed again later when the bulk of Ireland became independent, but NI remains British. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

People may sing "...never shall be slaves", but the original is "never will be slaves". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Marcel Duchamp

sculpture work of marcel duchamp a symbolism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpollarco (talk • contribs) 11:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you looking for information on Marcel Duchamp and Symbolism (arts)? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

sculpture work of Marcel Duchamp a symbolism , pragmatism,or formalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpollarco (talk • contribs) 11:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have linked to articles for you. --Lgriot (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

School Years For UK & America

It has been something iv always wondered, what are the differances between the uk school years and the americian school years, like what is 5th grade for uk schools.

NB: Reception is the UK's version of kindergarden by the way

Age	England & Wales Year	USA Year
0-5	Nursery school	Pre-school
4	Reception	Pre-school
5	Year 1	Kindergarten
6	Year 2	1st Grade
7	Year 3	2nd Grade
8	Year 4	3rd Grade
9	Year 5	4th Grade
10	Year 6	5th Grade
11	Year 7	6th Grade
12	Year 8	7th Grade
13	Year 9	8th Grade
14	Year 10	9th Grade
15	Year 11	10th Grade
16	Year 12	11th Grade
17	Year 13	12th Grade

so could you fill this table in, thanks Sophie:# 12:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In the USA: "7th Grade through 12th Grade", don'cha know. 1 through 8 traditionally were Primary School, also known as Elementary School. 9 through 12 were Secondary School, also known as High School or Prep School, i.e. preparatory for college. Grades 5-6-7-8-9, or a subset thereof, are now often Junior High School and/or Middle School. 9th through 12th are also referred to (echoing college usage), as Freshman, Sophomore, Junior and Senior. For the time prior to 1st Grade, there is also "Pre-School". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

When I went to school, grades 7th through 9th were known as Junior High, and grades 10th through 12th as Senior or just plain High School. For the first semester of the 9th grade I went to a private junior high school called a Free or Middle School, although the latter term was then rarely used.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I was brought up in the Scottish education system so I can't speak for the rest of the UK. At 5 years old we started Primary School. This went from primary 1 to primary 7 when we would move on to secondary school. At secondary school we started from 1st year through to 5th year, or 4th if you decided to leave school. Jack forbes (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the same as England when I was at school, though they now seem to number consecutively through secondary schools. I think that the UK column is one year out, with year 1 starting at 5 and reception at 4. See Education in England#School years -- Q Chris (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the system in the table the prevailing system in England and Wales, for state education purposes. The UK ages given are for the age the vast majority of the year are at the end of the year, not the beginning. (I don't know about the US.) Traditional systems vary widely, but Year 12 is still fairly commonly called Lower Sixth and Year 13 Upper Sixth, which you've missed. For a while, Year 11 was the last compulsory year of education, but starting with one recent year's Year 7, Year 12 will be. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I should have added that I am a middle aged guy and that things may have changed since I was a nipper. Time rolls on. :( Jack forbes (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Two of my kids attended school in Ireland, where they start at 4 in a class known as Infants. Here, in Italy it's different, where they begin at 6 in Scuola Elementaria; at 11, they move on to Scuola Media, then at 14, which is the legal age in which a child can leave school, they move up to Scuola Superiore which is usually a liceo (Italian school) , where they choose a school adapted to each individual's own particular scolastic ability. They normally leave at 19, such as my son, who's 19 and in his final year. However, he has a friend and classmate who is 22.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I should also have read the link I gave you to Scottish education which gives the school years for all parts of the UK.[4] Jack forbes (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

N.B. I've Corrected the table. All the pages we have on the American system suggest the intention of the table was the age of the majority of pupils at the beginning of the year, and so I've adjusted the English system to this effect. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I hate to be pedantic but I've changed it from UK years to England & Wales years. Jack forbes (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

ahh, so it seams that the us is one behind the uk school years because our "reception" is the usa's kindergarden Sophie:# 13:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, American kids normally enter kingergarten at about 5, although it depends on which time of the year a child is born. For example, if a child was born in December 1956, he would have entered kingergarten in September 1962 not 1961 because September is the cut-off date for births in any given year.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It is the cut-off date in England and Wales too. The child's nominal age is the age on 1st September. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I just about made it, since my birthday is 1st September! My Welsh education ran (1963-76) as ages 5-6 "Infants", then ages 7-10 Standard 1-4 in primary school, then switch to secondary school at 11 with Forms 1-5, then Lower Sixth and Upper Sixth, and so to university the month I turned 18, and graduate at 20... -- Arwel Parry (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Schools were & are (more so) structures to program children to become slaves to the coporate world. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Literacy is a corporate conspiracy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Depends on what literature they give you. Jack forbes (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"Books are fatal: they are the curse of the human race. Nine- tenths of existing books are nonsense, and the clever books are the refutation of that nonsense. The greatest misfortune that ever befell man was the invention of printing." -- Benjamin Disraeli. Vranak (talk)

You obviously didn't go to my British comprehensive in the 1970s - it was largely staffed by Marxist-Leninists (they were the moderate ones!). Alansplodge (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL. In 12th grade I had one of those (even looked like Trotsky!) who tried to get me to watch the film on the Russian Revolution he was showing; I merely held up my copy of Massie's Nicholas and Alexandra, which I was reading at the time, and he shut up-very quickly|--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I've forgotten most of my schooling (too much time bunking off) and have spent the last couple of decades educating myself to the degree where I can now string two sentences together. I know, that was only one sentence but I'm working on it! Jack forbes (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I was at a direct grant school in the 1960s, and was taught economics by a (very good) teacher who claimed to be a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. But this is getting dangerously off-topic, so watch out I don't tell you off... Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

California has recently changed their law so that you can't start Kindergarten unless you've had your 5th birthday as of September 1 of that year. It used to be sometime much later in the year, I'm thinking December 1, but I'm not positive on that. I know that that would have prevented me from starting school till I was almost 6, even though I was already reading at the age of 4. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't start kindergarten until I was fully six years of age: I have a birthday in the summer. I've known several people in my grade who are over a full year younger than I am, which is a little weird. Buddy431 (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Economics qualifications of UK chancellors

...during the 20th. and 21st. centuries? I bet lots of them had zilch. 78.147.140.229 (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a list here which contains wikilinks to biographies you can read. Gabbe (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Going through the Wikipedia biographies for post WW2 chancellors gives the following results:

John Anderson, economics degree. Hugh Dalton, no specific mention. Stafford Cripps, none. Hugh Gaitskell, economics lecturer. R. A. Butler, none. Harold Macmillan, none. Peter Thornycroft, none. Derick Heathcoat-Amory, none mentioned. Selwyn Lloyd, none mentioned. Reginald Maudling, none. James Callaghan, none. Roy Jenkins, degree in Politics Philosophy and Economics. Iain Macleod, none. Anthony Barber, none. Denis Healey, none. Geoffrey Howe, none. Nigel Lawson, degree in Philosophy Politics and Economics. John Major, GCE "O" level economics, non-graduate. Norman Lamont, degree in economics. Kenneth Clarke, none. Gordon Brown, none. Alistair Darling, none. George Osborne, none.

Nearly all of them are from Oxbridge, even the Labour ones, and the average tenure is less than three years. Nearly 80% of them have no economics qualification. 92.26.56.233 (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Kappa Sigma motto

A.E.K.D.B. ("Adelphoi En Kardia Dios Bous,". Meaning "brothers in the heart throughout life" or "brothers in the heart forever.") On the talk page the Kappa Sigma editors want to delete the long form and the translations on the ground that is is "unreferencable". This seems odd to me. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Since it doesn't mean what it's said to mean, it probably is unreferenceable. "Throughout life" might be "dia biou" (διὰ βίου), but "dios" looks like the adjective meaning "divine" (or it could be the genitive of "Zeus"), and "bous" means "ox" or "bull". Normally, one would have some articles in there, as well. Deor (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Doer, can you confirm that the English transliteration for "Αδελφοι εν καρδία διὰ βίου" is "Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou" so that there are no more mix-ups? =) Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Note, the fact that the motto is Αδελφοι εν καρδία διὰ βίου" is *still* unreferenced.Naraht (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea whether this is indeed a motto of the organization in question, and it would certainly need to be referenced before it could be included in the article; but to answer AEKDB's question, the five words with diacritics included (and with the word for "heart" in the dative case, as the object of the preposition ἐν) would be Ἀδελφοὶ ἐν καρδίᾳ διὰ βίου. A transliteration might be "Adelphoi en kardiai dia biou" (I'm not really sure what the usual way of transliterating a vowel with an iota subscript is, so "kardiai" may not be standard). As I implied before, this isn't terribly good Greek, though. Deor (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's reasonably tolerable "Telegraphese" or "Headlinese" Greek... AnonMoos (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Who was Leibowitz in A Canticle for Leibowitz?

Does anyon know whether there ever was an electronics engineer to which the book, A Canticle for Leibowitz refers? Or was it just a made-up name? --78.148.127.191 (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

While it would be very difficult to prove that there was no such real-life electronics engineer as Isaac Edward Leibowitz (Liebowitz is in itself a conventional Ashkenazi Jewish surname), I've never in over 35 years of active SF fandom heard it suggested that there was, and in the era the book was written it was usual practice to avoid deliberate or inadvertant references to identifiably real people in case they took real or simulated offense and sued. However, SF and other writers sometimes use the names of acquaintances for characters (a process called "Tuckerization" after the SF fan and author Bob Tucker who popularised the practice), and more recently some authors have actually sold the privilege of having one's name so used, often donating the proceeds to charitable causes. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

For an example of auctioning a name for charity, see Kick-Ass (comics)#Promotion. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Martin.

H. P. Lovecraft named one of his characters Klarkash Ton in honor of his friend, Clark Ashton Smith. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Robert Bloch also featured as "Robert Blake", if I recall correctly. This was indeed a game that members of the Lovecraft circle mutually indulged in. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right. See Robert Harrison Blake. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Fictional author Kilgore Trout ?= real author Theodore Sturgeon.Edison (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Was Agatha Christie Anglican or Catholic?

Thanks in advance! --92.74.123.203 (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This says "strong Anglican faith". Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Oldest U.S. National Parks

Can someone please give me a list of the oldest U.S. national parks? - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 20:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

By "oldest," I assume you mean the earliest to be designated National Parks. If you visit List of National Parks of the United States and sort the table by "Date Formed," you'll be able to answer your question.Annish33 (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If by "oldest" you mean physically oldest, then my first guess would be Keweenaw National Historical Park given that it is on the Precambrian Shield. 24.68.50.170 (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)